Escape to the Movies: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

[kuroikitsune]

P.S. Whats wrong with Bay's love of the military. Theres so many directors and hollywood folks that love to hate us and think that we are hired thugs (see most James Cameron films)
thats its kinda nice to see someone in hollywood who thinks we are something thats fun to make look good.

Actually, I think that James Cameron has gotten a bad rap for his depiction of military personnel in his films.

In Aliens, the Colonial Space Marines were pretty much the heroes of the movie. Especially Hicks played by Michael Biehn. Scared, out of their element, but in the end they succeed in defeating the alien threat. And nuking them from orbit

In The Abyss, 3 Navy SEALs go down to the underwater base and one of them (again Michael Biehn) goes insane because of pressure sickness. He isn't thinking rationally become paranoid and tries to nuke a perceived threat. One of the other SEALs helps defuse the nuke. The third just stands by. Overall I would say this is a neutral portrayl of the military. However, just to emphasize the point, the villian wasn't acting on orders from the Pentagon or anything, he just went crazy and acted on his own. While the focus of the film is anti-war, it is never anti-military.

In Avatar, the Corporation in charge of mining for Unobtainium has hired Ex-Military mercenaries to protect their base. These are not meant to be soldiers but private military contractors and mercenaries. Jake Sully is a former Marine as well. While there is a sense of Military vs Nature going on here. I will agree that this film does portray gung-ho military personnel as being evil, but again according to the movie they are just mercenaries. Of course the structure of the narrative for this forces the military to be the villian like the Union Army in Dances with Wolves or the new Imperial Japanese Army in The Last Samurai.

So overall, in the films that James Cameron has done that have had military personnel as a significant part of the plot, he is basically neutral on military matters when you look at these films. Of his other films, only True Lies has any military presence in it, and that is incredibly minor as the main characters are spies. Pirahna 2, Terminator, Terminator 2, and Titanic did not have any military presence.

On the other hand, Michael Bay's interest in the military is purely based on his love for the machines and not the people. All the characters in Michael Bay's films are broad stereotypes. The Rock gives some real character to military personnel, but other than Michael Beihn (again) and his SEAL team, the military characters in The Rock are all antagonists. Micheal Bay loves his explosions, cool hi-tech vehicles, helicopters at sunset, and even bigger explosions. The military is just a means to an end to accomplish his big explosion.

I really don't want to discuss Pearl Harbor because it lacks Bay's fetishitic approach to the modern military. However, it is the exception to Bay's fetishitic approach to the military. He has actual characters in this, but that was unavoidable because it's a dramatic love story.

So while Bay may generally show the military in a positive light, there are exceptions to that (The Rock), and the military in Bay's contemporary films are just a vehicle for producing explosions and action set pieces. He's not interested in the people, he just wants to make it look "cool". On the other hand, James Cameron has taken a fairly neutral appraoch to the military in his films. At least a balanced approach if you weigh the films based on who the villian is out of context.

 

[CleverCover]

Instead of seeing this movie, I begged my friends to come with me to go see Xmen. They were all iffy after Xmen: Origins, but I'm glad they loved the movie as much as I did.

I think it's a good trade off.

 

[Valkyr71]

P.S. Whats wrong with Bay's love of the military. Theres so many directors and hollywood folks that love to hate us and think that we are hired thugs (see most James Cameron films)
thats its kinda nice to see someone in hollywood who thinks we are something thats fun to make look good.

Actually, I think that James Cameron has gotten a bad rap for his depiction of military personnel in his films.

In Aliens, the Colonial Space Marines were pretty much the heroes of the movie. Especially Hicks played by Michael Biehn. Scared, out of their element, but in the end they succeed in defeating the alien threat. And nuking them from orbit

In The Abyss, 3 Navy SEALs go down to the underwater base and one of them (again Michael Biehn) goes insane because of pressure sickness. He isn't thinking rationally become paranoid and tries to nuke a perceived threat. One of the other SEALs helps defuse the nuke. The third just stands by. Overall I would say this is a neutral portrayl of the military. However, just to emphasize the point, the villian wasn't acting on orders from the Pentagon or anything, he just went crazy and acted on his own. While the focus of the film is anti-war, it is never anti-military.

In Avatar, the Corporation in charge of mining for Unobtainium has hired Ex-Military mercenaries to protect their base. These are not meant to be soldiers but private military contractors and mercenaries. Jake Sully is a former Marine as well. While there is a sense of Military vs Nature going on here. I will agree that this film does portray gung-ho military personnel as being evil, but again according to the movie they are just mercenaries. Of course the structure of the narrative for this forces the military to be the villian like the Union Army in Dances with Wolves or the new Imperial Japanese Army in The Last Samurai.

So overall, in the films that James Cameron has done that have had military personnel as a significant part of the plot, he is basically neutral on military matters when you look at these films. Of his other films, only True Lies has any military presence in it, and that is incredibly minor as the main characters are spies. Pirahna 2, Terminator, Terminator 2, and Titanic did not have any military presence.

On the other hand, Michael Bay's interest in the military is purely based on his love for the machines and not the people. All the characters in Michael Bay's films are broad stereotypes. The Rock gives some real character to military personnel, but other than Michael Beihn (again) and his SEAL team, the military characters in The Rock are all antagonists. Micheal Bay loves his explosions, cool hi-tech vehicles, helicopters at sunset, and even bigger explosions. The military is just a means to an end to accomplish his big explosion.

I really don't want to discuss Pearl Harbor because it lacks Bay's fetishitic approach to the modern military. However, it is the exception to Bay's fetishitic approach to the military. He has actual characters in this, but that was unavoidable because it's a dramatic love story.

So while Bay may generally show the military in a positive light, there are exceptions to that (The Rock), and the military in Bay's contemporary films are just a vehicle for producing explosions and action set pieces. He's not interested in the people, he just wants to make it look "cool". On the other hand, James Cameron has taken a fairly neutral appraoch to the military in his films. At least a balanced approach if you weigh the films based on who the villian is out of context.

I've got to disagree with you, although you present a well thought out argument. And thank you for not spitting vitriol or telling me how much of a dumbass I am or telling me i shouldnt vote or drive.

Now where I disagree.
Aliens: The Military is called out at the behest of the Company/Evil Corporation not at the behest of the govt essentially turning them into gun thugs for said company/evil corporation. In my opinion this is Camerons first real shot @ the military and him essentially saying that were all just gun toting thugs working for the corporate agenda and not the constitution.

Ill give you the abyss although the military is not wanted on the station because they are just gonna screw things up etc etc and they almost do.

Avatar: you made a pretty good point but bad corporation/evil military type guys/mercenaries.

Titanic: even though no real military folks here the law enforcement (ships master at arms) sides with the establishment/wealthy type. Money means bad and military/LE works for the bad.

Not sure if Dances and last samurai are cameron films but again a common theme is forming here.

As for Bay: in The rock the marines in it are all mostly gone from service with the exception of Ed Harris's charachter and they all scream out that they are mercenaries the minute they go against the govt and demand money for the hostages so that they get paid, along with the good thing that Harris is trying to do. Dont forget that the Marines (not mercenaries) Harris and his XO both do the right thing where as the money grubbers all just want to kill now indiscriminately. I think there is a very good distinction here that cameron always fails to make. Mike Bay, on the other hand, makes it very distinct and clear.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I don't think I can possibly add anything else to this already heated "discussion" so I'm just going to pointlessly say this:

Yeah, Captain America looks pretty good.

 

[kuroikitsune]

P.S. Whats wrong with Bay's love of the military. Theres so many directors and hollywood folks that love to hate us and think that we are hired thugs (see most James Cameron films)
thats its kinda nice to see someone in hollywood who thinks we are something thats fun to make look good.

Actually, I think that James Cameron has gotten a bad rap for his depiction of military personnel in his films.

In Aliens, the Colonial Space Marines were pretty much the heroes of the movie. Especially Hicks played by Michael Biehn. Scared, out of their element, but in the end they succeed in defeating the alien threat. And nuking them from orbit

In The Abyss, 3 Navy SEALs go down to the underwater base and one of them (again Michael Biehn) goes insane because of pressure sickness. He isn't thinking rationally become paranoid and tries to nuke a perceived threat. One of the other SEALs helps defuse the nuke. The third just stands by. Overall I would say this is a neutral portrayl of the military. However, just to emphasize the point, the villian wasn't acting on orders from the Pentagon or anything, he just went crazy and acted on his own. While the focus of the film is anti-war, it is never anti-military.

In Avatar, the Corporation in charge of mining for Unobtainium has hired Ex-Military mercenaries to protect their base. These are not meant to be soldiers but private military contractors and mercenaries. Jake Sully is a former Marine as well. While there is a sense of Military vs Nature going on here. I will agree that this film does portray gung-ho military personnel as being evil, but again according to the movie they are just mercenaries. Of course the structure of the narrative for this forces the military to be the villian like the Union Army in Dances with Wolves or the new Imperial Japanese Army in The Last Samurai.

So overall, in the films that James Cameron has done that have had military personnel as a significant part of the plot, he is basically neutral on military matters when you look at these films. Of his other films, only True Lies has any military presence in it, and that is incredibly minor as the main characters are spies. Pirahna 2, Terminator, Terminator 2, and Titanic did not have any military presence.

On the other hand, Michael Bay's interest in the military is purely based on his love for the machines and not the people. All the characters in Michael Bay's films are broad stereotypes. The Rock gives some real character to military personnel, but other than Michael Beihn (again) and his SEAL team, the military characters in The Rock are all antagonists. Micheal Bay loves his explosions, cool hi-tech vehicles, helicopters at sunset, and even bigger explosions. The military is just a means to an end to accomplish his big explosion.

I really don't want to discuss Pearl Harbor because it lacks Bay's fetishitic approach to the modern military. However, it is the exception to Bay's fetishitic approach to the military. He has actual characters in this, but that was unavoidable because it's a dramatic love story.

So while Bay may generally show the military in a positive light, there are exceptions to that (The Rock), and the military in Bay's contemporary films are just a vehicle for producing explosions and action set pieces. He's not interested in the people, he just wants to make it look "cool". On the other hand, James Cameron has taken a fairly neutral appraoch to the military in his films. At least a balanced approach if you weigh the films based on who the villian is out of context.

I've got to disagree with you, although you present a well thought out argument. And thank you for not spitting vitriol or telling me how much of a dumbass I am or telling me i shouldnt vote or drive.

Now where I disagree.
Aliens: The Military is called out at the behest of the Company/Evil Corporation not at the behest of the govt essentially turning them into gun thugs for said company/evil corporation. In my opinion this is Camerons first real shot @ the military and him essentially saying that were all just gun toting thugs working for the corporate agenda and not the constitution.

Ill give you the abyss although the military is not wanted on the station because they are just gonna screw things up etc etc and they almost do.

Avatar: you made a pretty good point but bad corporation/evil military type guys/mercenaries.

Titanic: even though no real military folks here the law enforcement (ships master at arms) sides with the establishment/wealthy type. Money means bad and military/LE works for the bad.

Not sure if Dances and last samurai are cameron films but again a common theme is forming here.

As for Bay: in The rock the marines in it are all mostly gone from service with the exception of Ed Harris's charachter and they all scream out that they are mercenaries the minute they go against the govt and demand money for the hostages so that they get paid, along with the good thing that Harris is trying to do. Dont forget that the Marines (not mercenaries) Harris and his XO both do the right thing where as the money grubbers all just want to kill now indiscriminately. I think there is a very good distinction here that cameron always fails to make. Mike Bay, on the other hand, makes it very distinct and clear.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Umm... I hate to disagree with you again, but I think you're wrong on several points.

First, In Aliens it is made clear that while the Weiland-Yutani Corporation has requested help from the Colonial Marines, it is also made VERY clear that the Corporation is not in charge of mission. Although the Corporation is pulling the strings, Ripley and Hicks make it clear that the Marines have the final say in what happens. The Corporate goon played by Paul Reiser is not happy when they decide to nuke the sight from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure).

Second, In the Rock, it's another anti-establishment tail. The Military is wrong because they are denying benefits to the families of dead soldiers which is why Ed Harris's General goes rogue. ALso, the Marines that Harris brings along are still in the service, but they are generally more greedy than Harris is. Again, I would say that this is Bay's most balanced view of the military. It's not all flag waving. There is some nuance in the roles. Generally, you'd have to agree that this is a different view of the military than Bay's current belief.

You are right that Harris and his XO do the right thing, but they were the antagonists throughout the film. Harris plays a great character here, much better than just a normal bad guy. He's not a bond villian, just a man who's been wronged that we can sympathize with. The best kind of villian.

To clarify, I brought up Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai because they are the same type of story as Avatar. All of them based in part on the Pochantos story.

In the end, you have to agree that Cameron is not anti-military as you assert. And that Bay is generally very pro-military with some exceptions like the Rock.

 

[Xhuliano Pula]

TO MUCH LOVE!!!!
IN NEED MORE ROBOT FIGHTING ACTION!!!!!

 

[Valkyr71]

P.S. Whats wrong with Bay's love of the military. Theres so many directors and hollywood folks that love to hate us and think that we are hired thugs (see most James Cameron films)
thats its kinda nice to see someone in hollywood who thinks we are something thats fun to make look good.

Actually, I think that James Cameron has gotten a bad rap for his depiction of military personnel in his films.

In Aliens, the Colonial Space Marines were pretty much the heroes of the movie. Especially Hicks played by Michael Biehn. Scared, out of their element, but in the end they succeed in defeating the alien threat. And nuking them from orbit

In The Abyss, 3 Navy SEALs go down to the underwater base and one of them (again Michael Biehn) goes insane because of pressure sickness. He isn't thinking rationally become paranoid and tries to nuke a perceived threat. One of the other SEALs helps defuse the nuke. The third just stands by. Overall I would say this is a neutral portrayl of the military. However, just to emphasize the point, the villian wasn't acting on orders from the Pentagon or anything, he just went crazy and acted on his own. While the focus of the film is anti-war, it is never anti-military.

In Avatar, the Corporation in charge of mining for Unobtainium has hired Ex-Military mercenaries to protect their base. These are not meant to be soldiers but private military contractors and mercenaries. Jake Sully is a former Marine as well. While there is a sense of Military vs Nature going on here. I will agree that this film does portray gung-ho military personnel as being evil, but again according to the movie they are just mercenaries. Of course the structure of the narrative for this forces the military to be the villian like the Union Army in Dances with Wolves or the new Imperial Japanese Army in The Last Samurai.

So overall, in the films that James Cameron has done that have had military personnel as a significant part of the plot, he is basically neutral on military matters when you look at these films. Of his other films, only True Lies has any military presence in it, and that is incredibly minor as the main characters are spies. Pirahna 2, Terminator, Terminator 2, and Titanic did not have any military presence.

On the other hand, Michael Bay's interest in the military is purely based on his love for the machines and not the people. All the characters in Michael Bay's films are broad stereotypes. The Rock gives some real character to military personnel, but other than Michael Beihn (again) and his SEAL team, the military characters in The Rock are all antagonists. Micheal Bay loves his explosions, cool hi-tech vehicles, helicopters at sunset, and even bigger explosions. The military is just a means to an end to accomplish his big explosion.

I really don't want to discuss Pearl Harbor because it lacks Bay's fetishitic approach to the modern military. However, it is the exception to Bay's fetishitic approach to the military. He has actual characters in this, but that was unavoidable because it's a dramatic love story.

So while Bay may generally show the military in a positive light, there are exceptions to that (The Rock), and the military in Bay's contemporary films are just a vehicle for producing explosions and action set pieces. He's not interested in the people, he just wants to make it look "cool". On the other hand, James Cameron has taken a fairly neutral appraoch to the military in his films. At least a balanced approach if you weigh the films based on who the villian is out of context.

I've got to disagree with you, although you present a well thought out argument. And thank you for not spitting vitriol or telling me how much of a dumbass I am or telling me i shouldnt vote or drive.

Now where I disagree.
Aliens: The Military is called out at the behest of the Company/Evil Corporation not at the behest of the govt essentially turning them into gun thugs for said company/evil corporation. In my opinion this is Camerons first real shot @ the military and him essentially saying that were all just gun toting thugs working for the corporate agenda and not the constitution.

Ill give you the abyss although the military is not wanted on the station because they are just gonna screw things up etc etc and they almost do.

Avatar: you made a pretty good point but bad corporation/evil military type guys/mercenaries.

Titanic: even though no real military folks here the law enforcement (ships master at arms) sides with the establishment/wealthy type. Money means bad and military/LE works for the bad.

Not sure if Dances and last samurai are cameron films but again a common theme is forming here.

As for Bay: in The rock the marines in it are all mostly gone from service with the exception of Ed Harris's charachter and they all scream out that they are mercenaries the minute they go against the govt and demand money for the hostages so that they get paid, along with the good thing that Harris is trying to do. Dont forget that the Marines (not mercenaries) Harris and his XO both do the right thing where as the money grubbers all just want to kill now indiscriminately. I think there is a very good distinction here that cameron always fails to make. Mike Bay, on the other hand, makes it very distinct and clear.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Umm... I hate to disagree with you again, but I think you're wrong on several points.

First, In Aliens it is made clear that while the Weiland-Yutani Corporation has requested help from the Colonial Marines, it is also made VERY clear that the Corporation is not in charge of mission. Although the Corporation is pulling the strings, Ripley and Hicks make it clear that the Marines have the final say in what happens. The Corporate goon played by Paul Reiser is not happy when they decide to nuke the sight from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure).

Second, In the Rock, it's another anti-establishment tail. The Military is wrong because they are denying benefits to the families of dead soldiers which is why Ed Harris's General goes rogue. ALso, the Marines that Harris brings along are still in the service, but they are generally more greedy than Harris is. Again, I would say that this is Bay's most balanced view of the military. It's not all flag waving. There is some nuance in the roles. Generally, you'd have to agree that this is a different view of the military than Bay's current belief.

You are right that Harris and his XO do the right thing, but they were the antagonists throughout the film. Harris plays a great character here, much better than just a normal bad guy. He's not a bond villian, just a man who's been wronged that we can sympathize with. The best kind of villian.

To clarify, I brought up Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai because they are the same type of story as Avatar. All of them based in part on the Pochantos story.

In the end, you have to agree that Cameron is not anti-military as you assert. And that Bay is generally very pro-military with some exceptions like the Rock.

Youre right about the rock however bay very plainly makes a distinction between soldier and mercenaries. more balanced view on the military than normal you bet. My problem with cameron is that he makes it appear whether through inference in the plot or through out right dialogue/plot devices that the military is just a bunch of hired guns. He never really makes the distinction between a soldier and a merc (BTW most professional military men hate the idea of guns for hire.)You are definitely right on one score though, It is the only way to be sure.

 

[Valkyr71]

Kurio you've been sparring with me, what did you think of teh review/movie. I havent seen the movie yet cause ive been working nights all week but i fully intend on seeing it.

 

[Worgen]

I like Transformers. AND YES. EVEN THE BAYSPLOSIONS. And I like Shia, too.

WHY SHOULD I NOT VOTE AND DRIVE BOB?

how the hell can you like shia, I can let the rest go but liking shia? ..... ugh *shudders* he was probably the worst part of the new movies, everytime I see his stupid face I want to punch it. everything he does in the first 2 movies (not gonna see the 3rd) is boring at best and fucken annoying at worse, usually with the worst aspects of a romantic comedy

 

[SlugLady28]

Thank you Bob, I needed that.

I liked the first one. The second one, I've changed my mind about. I have no reason to see the exact same movie for the third time. And I'm tired to. I'm saving my money for something that deserves money. And not some crud that's only good because it has pretty explosions.

 

[Active Schizophrenic]

I watch movies the same reason I read books for good stories. that's why I would rather listen to people speak around a campfire than see transformers 3.

 

[Apples_McGrind]

Just saw it and I totally disagree Bob.

Dark of the Moon is probably going to hold for me as the worst one in the franchise. A 45 minute coherent(a first for Michael Bay) action scene, doesn't excuse how whinny and annoying these characters are to the point I wanted to rip their guts out, event moreso the first to movies by far.

 

[crystalsnow]

So, people who like movies you don't shouldn't be allowed to vote? Wow. That's almost as bad as saying people who enjoy certain kinds of hip hop are a good reason for legalized abortion.

I didn't think it was possible to have this much bile for people who share different tastes than your own.

I don't think you understand what he said there.

 

[Mischlings]

Wow, reading this thread is making me depressed. I haven't seen the movie -- might see it, I saw Green Lantern and, really, there's not much that makes me regret buying a $5 matinee ticket (Bridesmaids, I'm looking at you), but the fact that it is, like Green Lantern, a movie with so much wasted potential, will probably leave me depressed.

And I just saw a commercial on TV for Captain America, which makes me depressed again, because it's not coming out for three weeks.

I need something to make me happy in the world of movies.

 

[jacx]

while i agree with you about the Transformers movies, i do not enjoy when you cry like this. picture micheal bay as a troll, you sir are feeding him. people are going to see this movie regardless of what you say. so instead of hoping up on your soap box and rehashing your same old points in your woe-is-me attitude, maybe you should just briefly mention yay or nay (in your opinion of course) and then take this weeks episode and review something you didn't get to or talk about up coming prospects. i don't want to sound like i'm condemning you, in fact just the opposite, i just want to hear the normal movie bob that's actually happy to do his job and loves movies.

 

[xFullmetalx]

I went to see the first. A terrible movie. Stayed as far away as I could from the second and will do the same for the third. I tell my friends the films are horrible and yet they still don't see that. What can you do.

 

[jshap243]

And by the way, I'm okay with Megatron dying like a tool. I was on the autobots side, and you know what? Megatron isn't. Eff him. I was expecting Optimus to come out trying to spare him or something and was pleasantly relieved when he just came out and pulled the trigger and cut the guy up.

I didn't watch all this build up to see the bad guy get some glory, I watched it to see my main man Prime kick his punk ass off a Chicago bridge.

 

[hexFrank202]

"at least you're not behind the wheel of a car or in a voting booth where you could really do some damage."

I swear to god Bob you are hanging sooooo close on the edge of vile dickery. You'll look one direction and badmouth the people who judge people based on race or sexuality, then immediately turn around and make extremely broad conclusions on people based on the kinds of movies they like

What is your problem?? Why do you have to go on about the audience every single goddamn time? Can't you just tell us the movie is bad? Do you think you have to spit in everyone's faces to keep them away? Do you not feel confident enough in your own intellectual analysis of movies, so you resort to mudslinging too?

I was pissed off at your stereotyping of the Fast and Furious fans, and I've never once watched any of those movies. I got fed up with your ranting and raving on Xbox 360 Master Chief fans, and I'm almost as Nintendo-loyal as you.

And so I am completely legitimate in being genuinely... well, it's become sort of a bad word for me. But there is no word better to describe my feeling: offended. I am offended that you think someone who would like a Transformers movie is the same person who would go out lynching homosexuals holding pitchforks and torches.

In fact, I'm offended that you'd consider a Transformers-movie fan to be the kind of person who would like every dumb hollywood movie that comes out. BECAUSE I DON'T.

I couldn't stand more than ten minutes of Yogi Bear.
I can say without any hesitation that The Expendables would bore me to death.
The new Pirates of the Caribbean movie would do the same.
Most generic Pixar wannabes unimpress me of flat out piss me off.
I guarantee you I would not be able to stay awake during The King's Speech.
"Red" left no impression on me and was only decent because of Bruce.
I hardly watch any big budget action movies anyway, because they're all the same.

You see, Bob, I have a taste in movies. I love analyzing them, thinking about them, appreciating them.

I adore every shot of Clockwork Orange. I love hearing each line of its strange vocabulary and figuring out what it means.
I had a blast slowing down and thinking about what was going on in Inception. I could get about 80% of it the first time.
Have you ever seen "Quiz Show"? I loved it! It made the idea of a game show scandal ridiculously interesting. I'd love to know what you think of it.
Pulp Fiction left a permanent impression in me. It's awesome, and I can tell you so many reasons why.
I'm a big-time Pixar fan. I love all the little details in Wall-E, I love the original idea of Monsters Inc, The Incredibles might be their best. No matter how deeply I look, I can't find a single flaw in the narrative; its story and plot-direction is seriously on par with the original three Star Wars'.
Right now, at this very moment, a few feet to my left, are shelves and nooks and boxes of movies, mostly VHS; lots of high-minded thrillers, screwball comedies, classic films from the 40's, many of which I haven't even had the time to see yet, because I have so many. And buy more at thrift stores all the time.
Yeah, have you tried buying movies at thrift stores? It works well for me. Go to one, they'll sell VHS tapes for 1, maybe 2 dollars each. Every time I go there, I find at least five to nine movies I've heard about and want to watch.

So maybe now, Bob, you'll believe me when I say I am not just some thick-headed jock; some mindless moviegoer. When I like a movie, it's for a reason. I have an actual opinion. They just really, really differ from yours many times.

So let me just say: I really liked Transformers 1, I really liked Transformers 2, and I will probably like Transformers 3, if I see it. Here's why.

They aren't just the average, everyday dumb action blockbuster. They're loaded, jam-packed with lots and lots and lots of... stuff. Just, stuff. Everywhere, all the time. Every two seconds, there's a new stuff. Especially with movie #2. Just, STUFF! STUFF! STUFF! I'll get back to this in a minute, but first...

I also really liked how many cliches it has, but how it almost always changes them from cliches I hate, into cliches I kind of like. Like in the first one, the scene where Shia is having to find his backpack or whatever, and his parents are coming into his room? And waaaaacky hijinks ensue? Ordinarily, I'd loaaaaaath a scene like this, because in most movies, it would end with the parents coming in and going,

"What... is wrong with you Shia? Why are you acting so strange?" You know, getting all judgmental, and angry. As if they somehow know he went on an epic robot adventure without their permission. "We demand an explanation right now!"

But no, instead, Megan Fox (who is dull and boring, I'll agree with you on that) stands up and the parents are happy.
"Ohhh! Wh-who is this?" They smile.

I loved that scene. I thought for SURE it was going to turn into the same boring, tired 'conflict' bullshit that I hate, but it instead turned into the slightly less boring, slightly less tired 'everything is cool and nothing has a point' bullshit that I like!

Now I want to get into the single, most biggest thing that either makes or breaks a movie for me: definition. What is the movie trying to be? What is the point? If the point is not well defined, I'll hate the movie. If the characters are not well defined, I'll hate the characters.

Transformers is very defined; it knows exactly what it wants to be: BIG! EXPLOSIONS! The characters? This guy is a wimpy, whiny kid who cracks jokes and somehow never gets killed. This girl is artificially, superficially attractive and runs around doing nothing. These military guys are cool. This guy is funny but weird but stupid but smart all at the same time. Stuff happens. There's always stuff. And then it's over.

So, yeah, basically, "nyuhh, I just wanna shut off my brain and watch a movie". Except not. That's not exactly what it is. So now, let's get into the final thing. The biggest 'point' you always make about movies like this.

I read your blogs, Bob, I read what you said about the "dumb action movies actually DO stimulate your brain more, just not in any constructive way". Well let me say what the 'dumb jocks' are really trying to say:

An action movie is like a roller coaster. It has no physical value, it doesn't enrich your life, it's just pure, simple fun. HOWEVER. That doesn't mean they're easy to be impressive or enjoyable. There's a very fine, precise science they have to balance upon. Every twist and turn has to be perfect, every bank and slope has to be designed and constructed with the greatest precision. If they make too many mistakes, the flow of the roller coaster is destroyed and it leaves the audience sick and nauseous, or with a sore neck.

In the same way, big, dumb action movies have to pace every scene right, direct every shot right. Everything has to come together. If not... well most people won't care. But I do. I could be left disgusted, or annoyed, or sore. And so would you, Bob. But I find this roller coaster, this Transformers, to be a pretty well-designed one. It's fun, and cool, and well-paced. That's why I like it. I don't like it for the 'chick' (she's not hot. Even this new replacement doesn't look much better), not for the 'awesome military bro!', not for any of that. It just all comes together nicely and it leaves me satisfied. The whole thing is a mess, but it's a fantastic, good-looking mess that I can appreciate.

Thank you for reading this wall of text, goodnight.

 

[Mangod]

Despite (or perhaps even because of) the flaws with "Dark of the Moon," I still enjoy it and the live-action TF franchise.

Michael Bay's interpretation of things is by no means the worst thing to ever happen to Transformers.

No, that would be Kiss Players. Google it, then chugg a bottle of Jägermeister.